School patronage

Kiwi in IE

Shrap wrote: »

No, the RSE curriculum is different. Our school brought in a facilitator to teach it as they felt it would go over better than if their regular teachers delivered it, but otherwise it was factual, non-biased and purely informative. I had one question for the facilitator before hand about something it said about exploring sexuality preferably in marriage (or something like that), but otherwise it was fine. Check it out yourself: https://www.healthpromotion.ie/hp-files/docs/HPM00478.pdf

Then make sure your school uses this in RSE. AFAIK, they have to.

Grand thanks Shrap. I want him to have regular factual RSE, but not that abortion/chastity/sex only between a mummy and a daddy within marriage crap

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Is all RSE done from a Christian perspective or is there regular RSE as well? I don't want him taught about abortion, marriage, families, sexuality or anything like that from a Christian perspective, so will I need to opt him out of RSE or will opting him out of religion cover it?

There's regular Relationships and Sexuality education - SPHE (Social, Personal and Health Education) and then there's the Catholic RSE, so the best I could suggest to you Kiwi is that you talk to the Principal in the school to find out what their RSE policy contains and how sex education is delivered in the school (they may also bring in an outside organisation instead of having the teacher do sex education), but the teachers in my child's school are very good in fairness to them. For instance while my son is also learning about abortion, he has learned about miscarriages, consent, rape, etc.

The "Busy Bodies" booklet Shrap is talking about is this one -

http://www.healthpromotion.ie/hp-files/docs/HPM00478.pdf

Parents can also order the booklet and DVD for themselves. I genuinely hadn't heard any controversy about it tbh, but I'm not seeing what's so worrying about page 129-130 either?


EDIT: Never mind, I think I see the issues some parents would have with it now I've seen Kiwi's post

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

[...] can anyone tell me what age kids are taught about human reproduction in biology [...]

In school? No idea. My snowflake had the basics down by the time of her fourth birthday with the last bits fitting into place, as it were, by the time she was six. We haven't covered reproductive choice yet, though choice is part of the way it was all phrased and explained.

Primary school in Kerry in the 1970's had nothing whatsoever on human biology though in secondary school, one enterprising RCC monk went gloriously off-message, I think around third year or so, and explained about contraception, very clearly, very honestly and in every detail imaginable. Though even then, to my memory, abortion was not mentioned and certainly not discussed.

Judging by that page or two from the RCC's early primary school book - the pages which achieved a certain currency last year - the RCC's general view is that kids should know that women, when called upon to perform, should say "yes", even if frightened. One assumes, by implication, that men can do as they wish, even if they're intimidating.

Kiwi in IE

Yes, Little Kiwi has the basics as well and will be fully informed of all aspects well before he reaches the age where they teach that crap. I was wondering about it thinking more of Irish children in general. If they are discussing the Catholic view on abortion at 11/12, I imagine some parents might not have done much about sex education and if the school hadn't either....

Delirium

Didn't have anything on human reproduction at all in my primary school in the 80s. And wasn't covered until 2nd (possibly 3rd) year in secondary school.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

Didn't have anything on human reproduction at all in my primary school in the 80s. And wasn't covered until 2nd (possibly 3rd) year in secondary school.

Same for me ( a little earlier than that!), as far as I recall. Secondary was a bit of an eye opener though; we got the down and dirty facts in Science which surprised a few people (all boys school) to our general amusement, but had the advantage of a Mater Dei graduate for Religion and Civics who drilled into us the more interesting aspects. On the one hand we were given very comprehensive instruction in how the rhythm method of contraception was only slightly more effective than prayer and some useful info on how to put a condom on a banana (and some advice on where to obtain such a prohibited device) along with far more useful biological information about women than our Science teacher gave us, on the other hand we got to watch a video of a late term abortion which I think would be illegal now. In fairness, anyone who didn't have a permission slip from their parents was ejected before the latter lesson but both certainly stuck in my mind.
Luckily bananas are freely available these days.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/survey-of-principals-shows-support-for-less-religious-teaching-1.2511506

Survey of principals shows support for less religious teaching
Primary survey shows 90% want more time for focusing on maths and English

When asked what subject they felt less time should be allocated to in the context of a crowded curriculum, some 85 per cent listed religion.

By contrast, about 90 per cent of principals felt more time should be dedicated to subjects such as maths, English and physical education.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

Same for me ( a little earlier than that!), as far as I recall. Secondary was a bit of an eye opener though; we got the down and dirty facts in Science which surprised a few people (all boys school) to our general amusement, but had the advantage of a Mater Dei graduate for Religion and Civics who drilled into us the more interesting aspects. On the one hand we were given very comprehensive instruction in how the rhythm method of contraception was only slightly more effective than prayer and some useful info on how to put a condom on a banana (and some advice on where to obtain such a prohibited device) along with far more useful biological information about women than our Science teacher gave us, on the other hand we got to watch a video of a late term abortion which I think would be illegal now. In fairness, anyone who didn't have a permission slip from their parents was ejected before the latter lesson but both certainly stuck in my mind.
Luckily bananas are freely available these days.

Christian Brothers in the 90s, no sex ed class at all (or anything about relationships in general) just the human reproduction module in the science text book.

lazygal

My sex ed was reasonably ok in school. In sixth class we had a few very open and frank and to the point lessons and my school was piloting the stay safe programme which was new at the time and also referred to sex education.
Secondary school was ok as well. The teacher who did the first year talk was a pretty openly gay woman who rolled her eyes when telling us we had to watch a stupid video, showed us the video, and then told us to write any questions we had down and put them into a box and she'd answer them at the next class. The low point was a priest telling us to never ever use condoms because they were an unnatural barrier for a married couple.

expectationlost

0009/2016 Rescinding of Rule 68 of the Rules for National Schools - See more at: http://education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Circulars-and-Forms/#sthash.6nYIpjMH.dpuf http://education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0009_2016.pdf last minute picking at document published in 1965 http://education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Rules-and-Programmes-for-Schools/ not impressed Minisiter

Circular Letter 0009/2016
To: THE BOARDS OF MANAGEMENT AND PRINCIPAL TEACHERS
OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS
Rescinding of Rule 68 of the Rules for National Schools
1. Introduction
At the conclusion of the work of The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the
Primary Sector the Advisory Group of the forum recommended that:
(i) the Minister for Education and Skills should review and update the Rules for
National Schools and;
(ii) as a first step, and in line with the general view expressed at the Forum, Rule
68 should be deleted as soon as possible.
2. Rescinding of Rule 68
The Minister has decided to implement the recommendations of the Advisory Group
in relation to the Rules and as provided in the Rules has rescinded Rule 68 which
concerned religious instruction in primary schools.
3. Religious Instruction
In relation to providing religious instruction that accords with the patronage of a
school of a particular denomination or faith tradition the Minister considers that the
matter can be informed by Section 15 (2) (b) of the Education Act of 1998 and the
functions of the board of such a school in relation to upholding the characteristic spirit
of the school.
The Minister has directed her Department to proceed to identify other Rules for
rescinding particularly where primary legislation deals with the subject matter of the
rule in question.
4. Dissemination of Circular
A copy of this circular should be provided to members of the board of management
and the teaching staff of each school. This circular may be accessed on the
Department of Education and Skills website at www.education.ie. An Irish version of
this circular is also available on the Department’s website.
5. Queries in relation to this circular
Queries in relation to this circular should be e-mailed to the Department at:
schoogovernance@education.gov.ie
Paraic Joyce
Principal Officer
School Governance Section
January 2016

expectationlost

Statement from the Bishops’ Council for Education in response to Minister’s rescinding of Rule 68 http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2016/01/28/statement-from-the-bishops-council-for-education-in-response-to-ministers-rescinding-of-rule-68/

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

Statement from the Bishops’ Council for Education in response to Minister’s rescinding of Rule 68 http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2016/01/28/statement-from-the-bishops-council-for-education-in-response-to-ministers-rescinding-of-rule-68/

Faith schools exist because there are parents who wish to have their children educated in accordance with their religious convictions. If the ethos of these schools is undermined then the rights of such parents are compromised.

See how a "wish" seamlessly becomes an entitlement.

Kiwi in IE

recedite wrote: »

See how a "wish" seamlessly becomes an entitlement.

The 'wishes' of parents who want their children indoctrinated with Catholicism seem to override the actual rights of everyone else it seems.

Pherekydes

Of course, he has it the wrong way around. Parents have their children educated in faith schools because that's generally all there is. And parents do have their children educated in faith schools to have them educated, not indoctrinated in the faith.

Absolam

Section 15 (2) (b) as referred to in the circular:
(2) A board shall perform the functions conferred on it and on a school by this Act and in carrying out its functions the board shall—
(b) uphold, and be accountable to the patron for so upholding, the characteristic spirit of the school as determined by the cultural, educational, moral, religious, social, linguistic and spiritual values and traditions which inform and are characteristic of the objectives and conduct of the school, and at all times act in accordance with any Act of the Oireachtas or instrument made thereunder, deed, charter, articles of management or other such instrument relating to the establishment or operation of the school,
Which means that in the absence of Rule 68 religious elements in schools will be at the discretion of the BoM, rather that directed by the State (which is fairly moot, given the direction provided by the State in the last few decades).

recedite wrote: »

See how a "wish" seamlessly becomes an entitlement.

But parents do have an entitlement to have their children educated in accordance with their religious convictions. Or at least, to have a religious education in accordance with their convictions.

42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

Remember?

looksee

But parents do have an entitlement to have their children educated in accordance with their religious convictions. Or at least, to have a religious education in accordance with their convictions.

42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

No, that guarantee is not that parents have an entitlement to have their children educated, it is a guarantee that they may educate...

So in order to share this right equally, the children of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are entitled to provide the religious education 'at home', and indeed if they feel there is insufficient physical education they are entitled to arrange extra themselves. In fact the more you look at those points, the more ambiguous they are.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

No, that guarantee is not that parents have an entitlement to have their children educated, it is a guarantee that they may educate...

Well, no, the entitlement to have their children educated (or at least the right of a child to be educated) is expressed elsewhere:
"The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."

looksee wrote: »

So in order to share this right equally, the children of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are entitled to provide the religious education 'at home', and indeed if they feel there is insufficient physical education they are entitled to arrange extra themselves. In fact the more you look at those points, the more ambiguous they are.

Well, it doesn't mention anything about sharing any rights equally, but parents are also entitled to provide that religious education in schools recognised or established by the State, just like moral, intellectual, physical and social education. And when they choose a patron that provides that education, that's exactly what they're doing....

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Well, no, the entitlement to have their children educated (or at least the right of a child to be educated) is expressed elsewhere:
"The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."

You have just said it yourself - the State can require that parents fulfil their rights (and obligations) to educate their children, and the State may (and does) make provision for that education to happen, but it does not include any requirement that the state provide religious education.

:PWell, it doesn't mention anything about sharing any rights equally, but parents are also entitled to provide that religious education in schools recognised or established by the State, just like moral, intellectual, physical and social education. And when they choose a patron that provides that education, that's exactly what they're doing....

See above. The state undertakes to treat all the children of the nation equally. Since it would not be practical for all children to be taught whatever shade and nuance of their religion (or their parents' religion) in a school setting, and since the state does not undertake to include religion in the 'certain minimum education' then the alternative is for the primary educators, parents, to take on this aspect of education themselves.

Bristolscale7

"The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."

The catholic church, as an institution that the bends over backwards to harbor pedophiles and disposes of dead children in septic tanks, does not meet the minimum standards required.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

You have just said it yourself - the State can require that parents fulfil their rights (and obligations) to educate their children, and the State may (and does) make provision for that education to happen, but it does not include any requirement that the state provide religious education.

I didn't; there's nothing about the State requiring that parents fulfil their rights to educate their children, only that the State shall require that children receive a certain minimum education. Which doesn't obviate the fact that parents shall be free to provide religious education in schools recognised or established by the State along with moral, intellectual, physical and social education.

looksee wrote: »

See above. The state undertakes to treat all the children of the nation equally.

That doesn't seem to be above? Just your assertion about sharing rights equally. The Constitution mentions children nine times, but never once says they'll be treated equally.

looksee wrote: »

Since it would not be practical for all children to be taught whatever shade and nuance of their religion (or their parents' religion) in a school setting, and since the state does not undertake to include religion in the 'certain minimum education' then the alternative is for the primary educators, parents, to take on this aspect of education themselves.

Does the state exclude religion from the 'certain minimum education' that it may require children receive? I was under the impression that the certain minimum has not been defined in legislation or in official policy, but if you have access to something that says different, I'd be interested in a link. Nevertheless, the State is obliged to permit parents to provide their childrens education (specifically including their religious education) in State schools.

recedite

Meanwhile in France, they want to discourage radicalisation and improve social cohesion in their schools.

In an unprecedented initiative, more than 5,000 “citizen volunteers” aged 18-94, including retired lawyers, journalists and business leaders, offered to go into schools to talk about secularism. Many volunteers have complained they have not yet been called upon. But Vallaud-Belkacem said the project was increasingly being rolled out.

Last year French schools were reminded that the principle of secularism (or laicite) must be upheld, despite the rising pressure for a more multicultural approach from certain quarters.

Here are some of the key action points this refers to in schools:

• That children have access to a common culture
• Any absence of pressure to conform to or covert to any religion
• Freedom of expression within the framework of the school rules and the respect of the French Republic’s values.
• The rejection of violence and discrimination
• Equality between boys and girls
• That teachers transmit the values of secularism in schools and that they remain neutral
• All teaching must be secular, in order that pupils can have an objective outlook on the diversity of world views. No subject should be excluded from scientific and pedagogic questioning.

looksee

Ref Absolam:

42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

I don't know how much clearer that can be; parents have a right and duty to educate their children including religious education. This is not required to be an all or none situation, they could do some of the education in the home and some in a private or state school, they have a right and duty, according to their means.

"The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."

The state's obligation is to ensure children have a certain minimum education - with no mention of religious education.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Meanwhile in France, they want to discourage radicalisation and improve social cohesion in their schools.
Last year French schools were reminded that the principle of secularism (or laicite) must be upheld, despite the rising pressure for a more multicultural approach from certain quarters.

Sounds like paradise. How many years do you think it will be before the Irish thickos get even close to such a harmonious approach to education or civil society? I suppose for the moment we can rest assured that we can at least hammer the French in rugby on a consistent basis!

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Ref Absolam:
I don't know how much clearer that can be; parents have a right and duty to educate their children including religious education. This is not required to be an all or none situation, they could do some of the education in the home and some in a private or state school, they have a right and duty, according to their means.

They could, and the Constitution requires that they can provide that education (religion not excluded) in schools established or recognised by the State. You're right, it can't be clearer.

looksee wrote: »

The state's obligation is to ensure children have a certain minimum education - with no mention of religious education.

So religion isn't excluded from the certain minimum education? That's what I thought.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like paradise. How many years do you think it will be before the Irish thickos get even close to such a harmonious approach to education or civil society?

Indeed, can you imagine our Dept. of Education sending out a circular like that to all publicly funded schools :eek:
It will be a long time before those goals are identified, let alone implemented. So much for the Irish republic.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Indeed, can you imagine our Dept. of Education sending out a circular like that to all publicly funded schools :eek:
It will be a long time before those goals are identified, let alone implemented. So much for the Irish republic.

I can't... I'm pretty sure these two points would be unConstitutional:
That teachers transmit the values of secularism in schools and that they remain neutral.
All teaching must be secular.

Cabaal

Sunday times today,

Yet another reason why this nonsense needs to be sorted out

recedite

recedite wrote: »

the Irish republic.

Absolam wrote: »

unConstitutional:

I see what you did there, playing around with capitals :rolleyes:
It is a small republic with a BIG Constitution.
Regrettably, there is no separation of church and state in the constitution; it has been left out, perhaps deliberately.
So we are left arguing the "constitutionality" of secular schooling by using indirect references, such as those relating to the peoples right to equality V the right of religions to carry on their own business.
Which argument tends to round in circles. In the end it is very difficult to show that secular schooling is either required by the constitution, or prohibited by it.
It is really up to the people who live in this small republic to choose to elect a government who will implement secular schooling through legislation, or else hold a referendum to introduce the separation of church and state into the Constitution.

PopePalpatine

recedite wrote: »

I see what you did there, playing around with capitals :rolleyes:
It is a small republic with a BIG Constitution.
Regrettably, there is no separation of church and state in the constitution; it has been left out, perhaps deliberately.
So we are left arguing the "constitutionality" of secular schooling by using indirect references, such as those relating to the peoples right to equality V the right of religions to carry on their own business.
Which argument tends to round in circles. In the end it is very difficult to show that secular schooling is either required by the constitution, or prohibited by it.
It is really up to the people who live in this small republic to choose to elect a government who will implement secular schooling through legislation, or else hold a referendum to introduce the separation of church and state into the Constitution.

Considering the amount of time Dev spent on his knees in front of Archbishop McQuaid, I think that "perhaps" can be bumped up to an "almost certainly".

expectationlost

Catholic schools weeks http://education.dublindiocese.ie/catholic-schools-week/ Dates: January 31 – February 6, 2016

The theme for Catholic Schools Week 2016: Catholic Schools: Challenged to Proclaim God’s Mercy.

http://www.catholicschools.ie/2015/12/21/catholic-schools-week-2016/
and


Survey of principals shows support for less religious teaching
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/survey-of-principals-shows-support-for-less-religious-teaching-1.2511506

These new “religion, beliefs and ethics” classes -which focus on world religions and other belief systems- will be separate to existing faith-based classes in denominational schools.

could we end up with more time spent on religions not less.